Hello Guillaume, hello ruby-talk, hello c.l.r,
Guillaume Marcais wrote:
> We are dying to know: what did you change? What was the problem?
<excuse>
The main problem was that I had almost no time to debug the problem
due to lots of work.
</excuse>
I'm not absolutely convinced that the problem is solved 100%. The bug
we solved today was that messages with an 'In-Reply-To'-header, but
without a 'References'-header were rejected by the NNTP host, because
it is a violation of the corresponding RFC. The solution was as simple
as the problem - adding a 'References'-header with the same msg-id as
the 'In-Reply-To'-header solved at least _this_ problem.
The reason why this went undetected for such a long time is that the
logging of the original rubygate script was quite limited, and in fact
it implied that the message went through, even if it didn't.
The other problem was that at the time David and I debugged the problem
for the first time it seemed like all of his postings appeared on the
local NNTP host, either because the problem was of a different nature at
that time, or because the Postings we checked were all valid ones.
I am quite sure that there are other scenarios which would prevent
postings go through to c.l.r, but either we will just not hit them, or
they will catch my attention due to the advanced logging i have now.
Anyway, I feel very sorry that I did not comment this problem in the
last days, and was not able to spend more time on it during the last
months (yes, months! *sigh*), because I usually do not like problems
accumulating to an unbearable state.
One Question which David brought up: I could re-feed the postings which
got lost because of the header-bug to the rubygate so they would
(at least I hope so!) finally appear on the newgroup, is there a general
need for that?
Kind regars,
Dennis Oelkers
--
Dennis Oelkers | Webadministration | Zentraleinrichtung Rechenzentrum
TU-Berlin | EN-Gebaeude, K042 | Telefon: 030-314-25029
Key Fingerprint:
A6 7A B6 90 09 56 E8 32 02 40 6B 27 80 17 00 89 61 E7 CA 6F